User talk:Guy vandegrift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:1 --- 2 3 4 5

Welcome![edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bell's theorem paradox draft[edit]

I moved "Draft/Bell's theorem paradox" to Draft:Bell's theorem paradox (with a colon rather than a slash). That is the proper page title for draft space. —teb728 t c 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And now I messed up the talk page as well. I will blank it and put on the author delete. Are you a bot?--Guy vandegrift (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Preview[edit]

When editing, have you ever tried using "show preview" instead on hitting "save page" every time you want to review your work? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I will work on that. I have been editing for a little over 2 years, and almost always on Wikiversity where the rules are looser. On Wikiversity I could write my own learning materials, and have written over 700 exam questions. Along the way I picked up a lot of habits that are bad from a Wikipedia point of view.
I have great respect for Wikipedia, which is why I chose to confine my unorthodox writing style to Wikiversity. In fact, the only reason I am on Wikipedia on this article is to attempt to get the v:Wikiversity:Education_extension extension installed on Wikiversity. I am a strong believe in separating the way Wikiversity works and the way Wikipedia works, and believe the best way I can serve Wikipedia is to make Wikiversity a quality place for alternative writing styles. See also v:OpenStax College.
I will try hard to create the habit of hitting show preview.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that I an writing this as a classroom project for 4 or 5 students in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Wright_State_University/Introduction_to_Astronomy_(Spring_2016). This is why I wanted a temporary header section for the lede, and why I added a conclusion section. Though Wikipedia articles don't conclude by summarizing the entire article, students might want to add more information.
BTW, the dashboard says that there will be 25 students in the class. I have decided to greatly restrict the number of students working on Draft:Bell's theorem paradox by giving students the option of doing much easier projects on Wikiversity, where I will construct my own primitive version of WikiEd. I am developing this on v:Wright State University Lake Campus/Mock Course 1010. I originally asked WikiEd to install the extension onto Wikiversity, but they declined, and for good reason: They are swamped with managing Wikipedia projects and don't need me pestering them to build a Wikiversity extension that I can construct myself.
Having said all that, I can tell that you are a competent person and your involvement in Draft:Bell's theorem paradox is extremely WELCOME. You can help me train the best students in my Astronomy class how to become editors (even if I am too old to learn new tricks)--Guy vandegrift (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Helloo[edit]

Hi--Estebanbenitez40 (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

About my subpages[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

A month ago I was planning to move all my sandbox content articles from Wikipedia to Wikiversity. All that changed when I created Wikiversity:First Journal of Science. Please talk to me before deleting anything, and please let me know ASAP if I am violating policy.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me digress a bit[edit]

I moved this out of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard because while the digression may have been appropriate, the insertion of a subheading on a talk page makes it difficult to edit because comments typically go at the bottom of the discussion. The subheader created a "false bottom" (after the digression).

  • Attention administrators: I am not a Wikipedian, but a Wikiversarian and don't greatly care about your rules and policy (even though I greatly respect them). If you wish I will move this discussion to my userspace and insert a link here. --User:Guy vandegrift

@Maschen, Xxanthippe, Ymblanter, Tsirel, CitiesGamer66, Ymblanter, CitiesGamer66, Sbyrnes321, and YohanN7: and Chjoaygame:

We have expended a great deal of effort to rescue a few articles from one editor. Since all but one of us supports the topic ban, let me take this opportunity to point out the obvious fact that Wikipedia has a problem. If Wikiversity and Wikibooks are solving the problem, they are doing so at a painfully slow pace. Allowing parallel WP articles where each author can "do their own thing" is NOT a solution for many reasons. The problem is this:

There are very few physics articles on Wikipedia that are as clear and focused as they should be.

All great institutions have problems, but the challenge is to identify those that have solutions. The solution I propose involves the concept of a v:Wikiversity Journal. Two such journals currently exist, and there is talk of creating a sister-wiki for such journals. I don't care where we put them, but I doubt Wikipedia would want to host them because if dozens of such journals are ever created, most will probably be of poor quality (I have ideas about how to solve that problem).

I stumbled into this discussion because it began on an inappropriate page that I happen to watch. Like user:Ymblanter, I have also "walked away" from most Wikipedia articles and have instead focused my attention on v:Wikiversity. Almost exactly two years ago, I inserted a statement that Heat is not a state function into the first paragraph of this version of Wikipedia:Heat. I had only recently appreciated the fact that establishing S (entropy) as a state function was one of the great accomplishments of 19th century physics, and felt is was important that students know that the process functions dW and dQ are entirely different from the state variables S, T, V, P, and T. A long discussion with Chjoaygame ensued that permitted the statement to remain. I was distressed to discover that while my awkward sentence was improved over the course of almost two years, it was suddenly deleted and replaced by a discussion of how the word "Heat" has evolved over the centuries. An important section in a Wikipedia article had devolved into something worse.

The idea of the WMF wiki-journal is that we can chop up established Wikipedia articles and republish them in two forms: One can never be edited, while the other can (under certain conditions) be improved. See Wikiversity:Second Journal of Science and my editorial Why this journal was created.

My interests are focused on first and second year science courses because that is what I teach. But if any of you are tired of edit wars, leave a message at Wikiversity:User talk:Guy vandegrift and I will help you set up and edit a journal of physics for undergraduate physics majors and/or graduate students.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's vote on whether to remove an external link.[edit]

will delete

superdeterminism[edit]

Hi. About your new picture to "Superdeterminism". It is indeed easy to guess that the past light cones of Sb and Sc intersect, since both contain "the Big Bang point". However, according to the contemporary cosmology, they do not intersect. True, they became closer and closer (in meters) near Big Bang. But also the absolute time becomes smaller and smaller. And the relation between these two infinitesimals is such that these cones do not intersect.

This delicate matter is often treated via conformal transformations. Meters and seconds are too large units near Big Bang. An appropriate conformal transformation implements the idea of gradual turn to smaller and smaller units there; it deforms distances (and times) but preserves light cones. And, after this transformation, "the Big Bang point" appears to be not a point but a 3-dim surface (in the 4-dim space-time)! And this surface appears to be space-like! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Though, I must admit, several cosmological scenarios are discussed now; and in some of them, the cones do intersect. I am not an expert in this matter. But, at least, we should not exploit the reader's naive idea of the Bing Bang. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the need to not simplify in a way that reinforces misconceptions. For that reason I propose an edit to File:Bell's theorem and superdeterminism.svg so that it resembles the timeline you see approximately one minute after the beginning of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxJ4M7tyLRE. You could edit the figure yourself if you know Inkscape, but I would be happy to modify the image myself and show it to you if you are interested. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, after seeing the movie I did not realize what kind of image do you want to make. But, of course, I can look on it when you'll make it. But again (irrespective of the form of the image): do you claim that the past cones intersect? according to which cosmological scenario? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC).
I changed the image. To refresh the browser you might have to make a minor edit (e.g a space) in the article. To answer your question, I make no claims about the early universe. What I do claim is that the violation of local realism is less of a problem if the parent atom has time to communicate with the detectors, and that the more time is allotted, the less mysterious this all becomes. I don't really understand superdeterminism, but these postulated deterministic mechanisms could allow Bell's inequality to be violated without "spooky action at a distance". The word "instructions" merely represent something analogous to "forces" don't need superluminar interactions. My understanding is that this why the use of light from distant galaxies has been proposed to control the detectors. Am I missing something important?--Guy vandegrift (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I just realized why you asked if the space cones intersect- If the initial universe was a space-like entity of reduced dimensions, no two light cones from t=0 would intersect. We really can't put this question into the figure and I have removed all light cones and talk of light cones in the caption.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I think, the distant galaxies are used (to control the orientation of the polarization detectors) in order to be reasonably sure that these orientations are not influenced by the parent atom and moreover, not correlated (with each other and the atom). If one agrees that the past cones do not intersect, and still believes the orientations are correlated, then he admits that the reason of their correlations is situated beyond the Universe (beyond the space-time). In terms of your "instructions" he admits that they are not generated within space-time. That is, the ontological status of these instructions is then equal to that of the Universe (and the space-time): not created dynamically by any physical process. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For me, the important question are (1) whether File:Bell's_theorem_and_superdeterminism.svg helps the reader understand superdeterminism, and (2) whether it is misleading about the early universe. I don't think omitting all attempts to portray the early universe can be construed as misleading. But does the figure help some readers better understand determinism? I can only speak for myself, but it certainly helped me visualize the proposed mechanism.

Keep in mind that the illustration is not intended to fully define the concept, but to establish (1) that the articles involves two entangled electrons being measured, and (2) that superdeterminism removes the need for indeterminate states. Though not explained or defined, I think the word "instructions" conveys the fact that Alice and Bob only need to leave the parent atom with the alpha and beta orientations defined. Somehow the galaxies were "programmed" or "fated" or "destined" (or even "knew") which photon to deliver to the detectors. And somehow, the parent knew how to polarize its two daughter photons. How the parent atom and the two galaxies achieved this state of pre-programmed behavior is beyond the abilities of my imagination.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I see. No objections from me. Happy editing. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced and original research[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Superluminal communication, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: I spent hours looking for a source but couldn't find one. We need to take this to arbitration. If I lose the case I get a paper. I have never gone to arbitration before. Do you know how?--Guy vandegrift (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration has nothing to do with this. You need to find a source—see wp:BURDEN, which is entirely yours. . - DVdm (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Bell's theorem and superdeterminism.svg
I suppose the "burden" is mine, but for the better good of Wikipedia, other's will want to step in and look at this. Somebody must have seen a similar diagram before.~--Guy vandegrift (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if you can get a source, and get article talk wp:consensus with others, then it might be allowed to stay. That's how Wikipedia works. - DVdm (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I make lots of figures. If you look up to the previous thread you will see a long discussion about the figure shown that I placed on Superdeterminism. Tsirel's concern was the way I drew space-time at the origin: The little wavy lines at the big bang are there because Tsirel didn't want readers thinking spacetime is 'flat' there. The axis labels of this graph was translated into French (I made it before I learned about Inkscape and svg files). See c:User:Guy vandegrift/Images placed on Wikipedia for an almost up-to-date list.
Regarding the space-time diagram, attempting to insert it into Wikipedia's Special relativity would immediately bring in the experts I need to talk to. But that would be abusing the system too much. When I posted on Superluminal communication I did have a good-faith belief that the posting was non-controversial. By the time I developed this into what appears to be a Minkowski diagram, I began to post only on talk-pages. I have almost quit writing in Microsoft Word, so a rough draft of a submission to AJP or EJP is being written at the bottom of Wikiversity:Minkowski diagram. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@DVdm: This (blacklisted) website demonstrates that my drawing File:Minkowski diagram icons.svg is not "original research": http://hubpages.com/education/Minkowski-Diagram . It took me a while to find it. I have no idea of whether this page is an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but have no intention of re-inserting the diagram into Superluminal communication without first bringing the issue to the talk page. Also, I wish to improve the figure before, and this will take a while. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Guy vandegrift. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)